Chief Exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth Says Devil Is In The Vatican

[MinutemanCO]

Thanks much, Toad.

[Backstop]

Here's to a speedy recovery for your wife, Minuteman.

[vector7]

Sorry to hear about your wife.

Your wife and family are in our prayers MinutemanCO.

v7

[wallis]

No offense taken, Minuteman.

I would ask, however, if you would look at reality for a moment as something outside our perception of reality. Suddenly, the thought of the four blind men describing an elephant comes to mind.

Existential in concept, I suppose, I propose that reality is akin to absolute truth, and no one can know or understand absolute truth.

Everything is perception, and I support the notion that each individual has his/her own unique perception. Where perceptions more or less coincide, then we as a whole claim this to be reality.

Regarding your comments to Michael, I, for example, am in complete disagreement with your sentiments. On the other hand, I feel a debate about whether your perception is more correct or less correct than mine to be kind of useless. Through nearly 50 years now of studying, exploring, questioning, et al, I have come to a point where my perception differs from--let's say--mainstream Christianity. My perception of God acting in my life and the resulting relationship with IT is, in "reality" (sorry, couldn't resist) the same.

[wallis]

Sorry. Had to dash off to the university and clock in. I get to listen to students all day try to convince me why they deserve a higher grade vice having earned one.

Back to the absolute reality thing. If you'll play along with me, I suggest that there is a recording "somewhere" that contains every actual event, thought, motivation, etc. that is completely unbiased and factual in every way.

For the record, I do not believe in angels or demons. People can be angelic or demonic enough without adding any supernatural elements into the mix.

Given the following scenario:

Fat, dumb, and happy, I am driving my car around 6pm, on my way to meet my wiife at a club to participate in a billiard tournament. Then, in the middle of an intersection, my car dies--flat-out dies.

Three strangers immediately run over to my car and push me three blocks to a gas station. They just as quickly disappear.

While I am trying to use my Kindergarten-level knowledge of car engines to understand what might have happened, another gentleman appears and offers the assistance of his personal mechanic.

I leave the car keys--figuring I'll never see the car again--with him, grab my laptop and my billiard cues, and head off to the club via public transportation.

Before the tournament is over, this kind gentleman calls me on my cell phone and wants to know where I am. He and is mechanic drive my car to the club! The problem was with the fuel pump, and the mechanic only asked for remuneration for parts.

Now, why did the three individuals rush to my aid and push me to the gas station?

Why did this benevolent stranger come over and offer assistance?

The reasons behind these actions would be contained in the absolute record of reality. I will never be privy to them, and, thus, I am left with great speculation as to why the people helped me.

But, I could be rather "Biblical" in the retelling of this story, which would be far removed from reality as we define it. Yet, my story would be real to me, a more existential reality, if you will, and certainly felt on the emotional level rather than on the intellectual level. In any case, my reality would be valid--for me--and accepted as a (note emphasis on the article) reality for others who are willing to share the experience at the emotional level.

At the moment of the car dying in the middle of the intersection, I was motivated to immediately pray to God for assistance. I did not cuss or get mad; so, maybe that is why God decided to help me right away and not let me stew in juices of my own making.

I could easily have stated that God and a couple of his angels--or all three being angels--were buzzing around the neighborhood, seeing if anyone could use their help. Suddenly, they appeared out of nowhere around my car, helped me, and then dissipoated into the ether, as angels are wont to do.

Then, I could just as easily stated that the Holy Spirit whispered into the ear of the benefactor, and his heart was opened to my plight. Then, like the parable of the charitable Samaritan, he went well beyond any kindness to deliver the car to me.

The first report above is as accurate as I can remember, keeping in mind that I experienced this even from a first person perspective.

The second report is more fanciful, and yet, if I were a person of such a mind who views the world more in terms of the supernatural, who is to say that my version was not real.

I hope that this better explains my original comment.

[American Patriot]

Wallis, I DO believe in angels and demons. I've confronted both in my life - apparently as have yourself.

The three people, five actually who assisted you with your car are indeed angels on this planet. Perhaps they are not of the Heavenly sort, but angels nonetheless.

This is what being "Christian" is about. It's not about using whips or angry words to force you to follow someone's impression/idea(l) of God.

What we call "Christian Behavior" is that self same behavior exhibited by those individuals and were we all so blessed to behave in such a manner to our fellow man there'd be a lot more believers out there.

But you see, when a RELIGION takes itself so seriously that it attempts to over ride other religions, or force one to follow the religion perhaps by force, religion becomes null and void.

God exists in some form out there, whether in "likeness" of man or no, this I am sure. That religions spend their time attempting to bring attention to this is good. That religions try to force people to follow it, or to make outrageous claims of "being the first" or "most important" or "the only one" is where all of this dies on the vine.

I think it is the utmost of arrogance for any group, religion, science, politics, state/nation or group to tell ME what to do, or how to do it. Period. Mayhap you will call me arrogant as well, but I am me, an individual and I believe STRONGLY that my individual rights TRUMP groups as above.

None of us should allow a group to dictate our actions or lives.

Every adult human who has any sort of education understand that they have the ability within themselves to help others without ordering them around, forcing them to follow stupid precepts of some religion or another and that grouping many such individuals together can indeed help many others - and believe it or not, THAT is what "Church" is.

Oh, I know going to the dictionary will gain you several meanings of the word "church" and most point to "buildings", but Church never was and was never MEANT to be a "building". It is an ideal of Christianity. Nothing more than a group of like-minded believers who have only good at heart.

Too many have not the heart, nor good to lead such a group these days.

And way too many have preconceived notions of how OTHERS should act, and not themselves.

[MinutemanCO]

Wallis...
Just a quick response to some of your points raised. Forgive my stunted attempt at philosophical argument. It's been a tough week. My comments are in orange.

For everyone else, sorry about this rabbit trail. Perhaps we should revert to PM for additional dialog


I would ask, however, if you would look at reality for a moment as something outside our perception of reality. For the sake of philosophical contention and for the potential of adding a few more points to my IQ via expansion of utilized processing mass, I’m willing to play along.

Existential in concept, I suppose, I propose that reality is akin to absolute truth, and no one can know or understand absolute truth. What philosophical grounding do you have for this statement? First, if you would define your understanding of absolute truth predicated on your world view, your statement might make more sense to me. My world view contends that God does exist and that He has defined all absolute truth. Some of which are as follows:
– God is a forever existent, perfect spiritual being
- God created the heavens and the earth
- God alone is God and we were created in His image; He has not been nor should ever be created in our image. Just think about how ludicrous this notion actually is. It’s like saying (on an infinitely smaller scale) that you, Wallis, as a person must conform to my predilections and preconceptions of who you are, not to who you actually are based on DNA, psychological and physical makeup, etc.
- we are all born as sinful creatures due to the sinful act perpetrated by the original man
- A perfect God and infinitely imperfect man may not exist together in harmony. He cannot look upon sin.
- There is no human act that can erase our sin debt and that can bridge the distance between ourselves and a perfect God
- God Himself has to erase our sin debt and justify us before our fellowship may be complete and our relationship restored.

Everything is perception, and I support the notion that each individual has his/her own unique perception. Where perceptions more or less coincide, then we as a whole claim this to be reality. Who says everything is perception? That is a distinctly human-centric belief. A CreatorGod would laugh at the implication that all things are dependent upon man’s own perception.

Regarding your comments to Michael, I, for example, am in complete disagreement with your sentiments. On the other hand, I feel a debate about whether your perception is more correct or less correct than mine to be kind of useless. Through nearly 50 years now of studying, exploring, questioning, et al, I have come to a point where my perception differs from--let's say--mainstream Christianity. My perception of God acting in my life and the resulting relationship with IT is, in "reality" (sorry, couldn't resist) the same.
- My main point is thus… biblical understanding and all claims made by the Word of God are defensible. They are not merely claims believed through a false hope in a purely devised system, but are borne out by the physical world and philosophical realm. One has but to objectively explore each notion. If you are so inclined, two places that might aid in this exploration are 1. Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...greenleaf.html and for a scientific twist, 2. Answers in Genesis Website

Sorry. Had to dash off to the university and clock in. I get to listen to students all day try to convince me why they deserve a higher grade vice having earned one.

Back to the absolute reality thing. If you'll play along with me, I suggest that there is a recording "somewhere" that contains every actual event, thought, motivation, etc. that is completely unbiased and factual in every way.

For the record, I do not believe in angels or demons. People can be angelic or demonic enough without adding any supernatural elements into the mix.

Given the following scenario:

Fat, dumb, and happy, I am driving my car around 6pm, on my way to meet my wiife at a club to participate in a billiard tournament. Then, in the middle of an intersection, my car dies--flat-out dies.

Three strangers immediately run over to my car and push me three blocks to a gas station. They just as quickly disappear.

While I am trying to use my Kindergarten-level knowledge of car engines to understand what might have happened, another gentleman appears and offers the assistance of his personal mechanic.

I leave the car keys--figuring I'll never see the car again--with him, grab my laptop and my billiard cues, and head off to the club via public transportation.

Before the tournament is over, this kind gentleman calls me on my cell phone and wants to know where I am. He and is mechanic drive my car to the club! The problem was with the fuel pump, and the mechanic only asked for remuneration for parts.

Now, why did the three individuals rush to my aid and push me to the gas station?

Why did this benevolent stranger come over and offer assistance?

The reasons behind these actions would be contained in the absolute record of reality. I will never be privy to them, and, thus, I am left with great speculation as to why the people helped me.

But, I could be rather "Biblical" in the retelling of this story, which would be far removed from reality as we define it. Yet, my story would be real to me, a more existential reality, if you will, and certainly felt on the emotional level rather than on the intellectual level. In any case, my reality would be valid--for me--and accepted as a (note emphasis on the article) reality for others who are willing to share the experience at the emotional level. I would propose that what you are describing is not reality, but perception or experience (if you will). Respectively, one is concrete and may not be altered where the other is constructed through many influences or impressions applied to your existence.

At the moment of the car dying in the middle of the intersection, I was motivated to immediately pray to God for assistance. I did not cuss or get mad; so, maybe that is why God decided to help me right away and not let me stew in juices of my own making.
I could easily have stated that God and a couple of his angels--or all three being angels--were buzzing around the neighborhood, seeing if anyone could use their help. Suddenly, they appeared out of nowhere around my car, helped me, and then dissipoated into the ether, as angels are wont to do.

Then, I could just as easily stated that the Holy Spirit whispered into the ear of the benefactor, and his heart was opened to my plight. Then, like the parable of the charitable Samaritan, he went well beyond any kindness to deliver the car to me.

The first report above is as accurate as I can remember, keeping in mind that I experienced this even from a first person perspective.

The second report is more fanciful, and yet, if I were a person of such a mind who views the world more in terms of the supernatural, who is to say that my version was not real.

I hope that this better explains my original comment.
Thanks for the further explanation.

[American Patriot]

So what exactly is your point in posting on this thread? Did someone FORCE you to agree with mine or anybody else's opinion on this or any other 'religious' thread?

No, they have TRIED many times in the past. I'm not only talking about religion, Michael and you should realize that by now.

It's a 'straw man' argument you've made here. Nobody here least of all me is forcing you to believe anything. You'd like to think someone is 'forcing' something down your throat, in order to not have the burden of thinking about it.

Straw man argument? LOL. I don't make "straw man" arguments. I make real arguments based on real events. I think you just don't know what you're talking about most of them, if you want my honest opinion.

I think you've chosen to come to this site to spread the word of God.

That's not what the site is for. So do it elsewhere.

Most of us have our own beliefs and don't need a wannabe-priest running around the site trying to convince us how good and true the Catholic Church is.... I for one don't want to hear it any more. Neither here, in my face in person (as has been done so often lately) or anywhere else.

You're welcome to preach all you like on the street. Not here.

'Force' truly comes from within, not from without. And certainly not without your own will.

You're correct....

'religion' really is 'stupid' in a way. But nobody I talk to here is 'Stupid' or 'Religious'.

You agree then, with pretty much everything I've said...

I said "Religion is stupid" and I meant it. If you bother to read anything ELSE I've said in addition to that statement there is certainly more to it than a simplistic statement.

You have your religion, I have mine. Others have theirs. In NO CASE is it precisely the same, regardless of the form it takes... in other words, no two Catholics believe EXACTLY the same thing.

When one tries to convince the other to believe the first person's way, that's when things get stupid.

Christianity, in GENERAL is all the same. One religion is not "better" or "more right" than the other except in your OWN mind.

You've stated more than once in various ways that Catholicism is "most right" and the "only way".

I call that nonsense. And Stupid.

Strange that you interject with these kinds of vehement posts about something you 'don't want to hear about' and 'don't care' about.

Strange that you're concerned about it. I shall "inject" what ever I wish, when I wish, and when I don't like it "enough" I'll remove it.

Call that a threat if you like, but don't test me, or my patience.

[wallis]

Read this today. You all might find it interesting, I hope. It has to do with memories--false memories that are believable by the individual.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...alse-memories/

[wallis]

Minuteman,

Your responses to my post are, of course, based upon your experiences, study, and perception. And, they are valid in so much as to you.

They are not valid in reference to my experiences, study, and perception. However, just because I would "disagree" with you does not make either of us right or wrong.

Who says everything is perception? From what I have read from our different psychological experts, that is the general consensus that I perceive they are saying.

Bottom line: what you believe is what you believe, and that is fine. Where the problem begins--as Rick very bluntly expounded--is when one person begins to "enforce," if you will, one perception of "absolute truth" over others.

BTW, God and I have a good time laughing with each other and at each other.

And, I hate debating. Arguing is more fun!

[MinutemanCO]

I'm curious how you ended up with such an illogical world view. You are obvious an intelligent individual. If what I'm gathering is correct, you are employed by an institution of higher learning, perhaps even a professor. This explains a great deal. Post modern thought and the chaos it wreaks pervades college campuses as can be witnessed by the absolutely immoral and amoral behavior perpetuated by today's graduating young men and women. Unfortunate. Anyway, have fun with that.

Oh... and I know... what may be considered illogical to me, is not illogical to you in your reality.

[wallis]

You're getting warmer, Minuteman. And, by the way, I am a professor at a Catholic University.

[wallis]

Yes, Michael.

It is a wonderful thing that both religion and God are free from the strictures mankind has placed on both.

God is all things to all people.

By the way, you name-dropped again, in reference to my thinking, and I have no idea of whom your were referencing.

So many people wish to believe in a two-dimensional horizontal or linear view of the cosmos. Personally, I could care less what people want to believe. It is when just one person states that I have to believe in that three-tiered, Plato-described cosmos (one the Augustine appeared to share [The City of God], only interpreted according to his Christian beliefs) that communication ceases to exist.

Why should I trade a wonderful three-dimensional cosmos and go back to something that is illogical and proven unreal?

You know, I think it is kind of humorous when people of any discipline set up a scripture asi the basis of any religion when the religion first formed before there was one word of scripture in the first place.

The collection of writings of the OT, for example, span a few centuries. Most of the redacted work was compiled in the 7th Century bc. However it was collected,o changed, redacted to incorporate various (and differing) versions of a story, etc., the intelligentsia that escaped Israel into the backward, rural, disjointed nation (if one could really call it that) of Judah had several hidden agendas. One of which was the total erradication of any other gods, especially the overarching female goddess worshipped by most of the world, to favor a single, male god.

Despite all the efforts to correlate the Old Testament with the New, an exercise that has consumed millions of manhours that should have been spent on following the Christ's commandment of loving people, the OT actually has very little in common with the NT, other than nearly all of the 27 books of the NT were written by Jews.

The OT is full of sons of God. The only difference between the OT sons and the NT son, which Jesus kept referring himself as the sun of man, is that the OT sons saved Israel (or the Jews), with the "beloved" recurring theme of destruction with a small remnant saved, and the Christ as saving the whole world.

What adds to the humor is the reality that the early Christians did not have a New Testament, did not need scripture to follow the Christ's teachings, and followed a fairly simple philosophy of love and hope.

No, it took people to come up with a compendium of words, "bless" them and authorize them as scripture, and then make up all kinds of Law to not only return mankind back to the fetters of that "ol'-time religion" characterized more by pagan superstitions but to obfuscate God and attempt to limit ITs wonderful connection to ITs creation. And in my opinion, the worse offender was whomever decided to dominate the NT with the works of Paul, who single-handedly changed the the philosophy of the Christ.

[Sorry, but I no longer will bow my neck before the ridiculous notion that God is male. It smacks of the uneducated belief that the female iowomb is barren until a man plants a seed. Secondly, it also smacks of the cowtowing mankind had to do when Marduk became the "one and only" god, who was, of course, male. God is neither male nor female. And please don't use "Jesus called him Father"; of course, he did because that was the convention of the day, and to make any other kind of reference would have guarranted the situation that no one would have listened to his message of hope and deliverance.]

Again, religion is personal. No matter how much debate is given, nothing will be decided, unless we are to reduce ourselves to brawling, murdering, and the like, which is akin to the devices of those who believe in a very real devil.

Christ would no more argue about how one thinks of God and the relationship one has with God than he would turn away even an atheist seeking his healing. And if this son of God turned no one away, who then can rightfully stand up and state in the name of his or her god that he (or she) is righteous in belittling the beliefs of others, even to the point of denying God's love to a select group of people, using some kind of "voodoo" Christian tactics or rituals that everyone must accede to in order to deserve God' love.

We all should know that such behavior is not Christ-like at all. Rather, it is representative of the anti-Christ. And we knoaw who the anti-Christ is: all we have to do is look in the mirror! At least Paul had that point correct: the old Adam must die (daily) and the new Adam put on, which is the philosophy of Jesus THE Christ.

[Yes, I use the word "the" between the name of the man and his title. Since Greek does not use articles, it is still right to use, as there were a number of false Christs running around during his rtime, even as there are a great number of false Christs running around today, spreading their venom in order to deny the message of grace and hope. There is but one Christ. Now, if we can only find our way back to his original message, there might be a resurgence of hope in this world, and we can finally end this bloodsport we humans are programmed to enjoy.]

[MagnetMan]

In light of what has been discussed by myself and others on this and other threads, please check these linked articles on Vatican regime calls for a global world authority, a central global bank, and attacks on the free market;

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...25887020111024

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...ZLO1Ls20111024

Those links are now dead.

[American Patriot]

It's rooters... what do you expect?